ON THE FUTURE CA P AND CLIMATE POLICIES
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
RECOMMENDATIONS
ON THE FUTU R E C A P
AND CLIMATE POLICIES
1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report is published under the EUKI-funded
project “An unavoidable step after Paris:
Cutting emissions from farming” and with support
from the European Union’s LIFE programme.
EUKI (the European Climate Initiative) is a project
financing instrument by the German Federal
Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation
and Nuclear Safety (BMU). EUKI’s overarching goal
is to foster climate cooperation within the European
Union in order to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.
It does so through strengthening cross-border
dialogue and cooperation as well as exchange of
knowledge and experience.
The project “An unavoidable step after Paris:
Cutting emissions from farming” aims to raise
public and political awareness around the need
for an ambitious legislative framework on climate
and agriculture (national plans, governance and
CAP) through publications, workshops and
other activities targeting multi-level decision-
makers, industry, civil society and academia.
The project is led by the European Environmental
Bureau (EEB) in Brussels. BirdLife Europe is an
implementing partner in Brussels and national
affiliated partners in the target countries are: IIDMA
(ES), Birdwatch Ireland (IE), Germanwatch (DE),
CEEweb (HU) and France Nature Environnement
(FR).
This report is written by Asger Mindegaard (EEB),
Celia Nyssens (EEB) and Harriet Bradley (BirdLife
Europe) with contributions from the national
affiliated partners
Layout and visual design by Gemma Bowcock (EEB).
This communication reflects the authors’ views
and does not commit the donors.
Cover photo: wajan (stock.adobe.com)
2
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 2
SUMMARY 4
INTRODUCTION 5
1 AGRICULTURE’S CONTRIBUTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE 5
1.1 Emissions from agricultural activities and LULUCF 5
1.2 Emissions from agriculture accounted in other sectors 6
1.3 Hidden (imported) emissions 7
1.4 Soil carbon: Past losses and future opportunities 8
2 THE CURRENT POLICY FRAMEWORK 9
2.1 Mainstreaming climate action in all EU funding 9
2.2 Climate action in agriculture through NECPs 10
2.2.1 Benchmarking of climate ambitions of five NECPs 10
2.3 Climate action through the Common Agricultural Policy 11
2.3.1 Pillar 1: Direct Payments, coupled payments, and Greening 11
2.3.2 Pillar 2: Rural development programmes 12
3 WHAT WE RECOMMEND 13
3.1 Reducing GHG emissions 13
3.1.1 Reduce farm animal numbers in Europe and help farmers transition 13
3.1.2 Promote EU-wide adoption of agroecological farming practices 13
3.1.3 Enforce best practice in nutrients management 14
3.2 Increasing carbon sinks 14
3.2.1 Protect and manage permanent grasslands for climate and biodiversity 14
3.2.2 Ensure the conservation and fund the restoration of wetlands, peatlands, and forests 15
3.3 Ensuring accountability through governance and monitoring 16
3.3.1 Inclusive governance for good policymaking 16
3.3.2 Science-based and result-oriented monitoring 16
3.4 Integrating climate in all policies 16
3.4.1 EU trade must be climate-proof 16
3.4.2 Leveraging public and private funds for climate action in agriculture 17
3.5 Delivering jointly for climate and biodiversity 17
CONCLUSIONS 18
APPENDICES 19
3
oticki (stock.adobe.com)
SUMMARY
Agriculture is a crucial, yet often neglected, piece in the puzzle of limiting
global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as defined in international agreements.
Emissions related to livestock, mineral fertilisers and land management are adding
greenhouse gases to the atmosphere while intensive agriculture and land use changes
limit the land’s capacity for absorbing and storing atmospheric carbon. Furthermore,
considerable emissions driven by agriculture and food demand are hidden in other
sectors and in imports.
Agriculture is central to global agreements such as Policy change is needed to ensure the agricultural sector
the UNFCCC Paris Agreement and the UN Sustainable contributes to global, EU and national climate action.
Development Goals. Within the EU, the sector is mainly On the one hand, GHG emissions from farming must be
governed by the common agricultural policy (CAP) but is reduced as much as possible and the natural carbon
also influenced by the National Energy and Climate Plans sinks on agricultural land must be enhanced. On the
(NECPs). Sustainable finance and green public spending other hand, improved governance is key to
is also important for climate action in agriculture, and improving participation in policymaking and
while, in theory, a considerable part of the CAP budget ensuring accountability through clear and science-
is earmarked for climate action, the flawed accounting based definition and monitoring of goals. Finally,
methodology means this spending is so far not resulting climate action must be integrated as a cross-cutting
in emissions reductions. priority in all policies, including trade, and synergies
should be sought and prioritised between climate
and other environmental and societal objectives, such
as biodiversity conservation.
4
INTRODUCTION
it take into consideration the emissions embedded in
Agriculture is both threatened by, and a
inputs for the agricultural sector which we import into
major contributor to the environmental the EU. We take a closer look at those different emission
crises we are facing. With regards to sources in the first section of this report.
climate, the focus of this report, this The European Union (EU) is officially committed
interrelationship is crystal clear. to limiting climate change to an increase in global
average temperatures of 1.5 degrees Celsius
An increasingly unstable and extreme climate will
through the Paris Agreement. This is an ambitious
deeply undermine European agriculture. Higher
objective, and to accomplishing it takes equally
temperatures and more frequent extreme
ambitious policies. In the second section, we explore
weather events are already wreaking havoc for European
the policy landscape driving climate action in
farmers. In addition, agriculture is part of the
agriculture.
problem: it is commonly said to contribute up to 10%
of the EU’s total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Farmers themselves hold the keys to many solutions.
They have an array of agronomic practices and
This is sizeable, and yet, it is a glaring underestimation
technologies at their disposal to mitigate and adapt
of the sector’s total carbon footprint. It does not include
to climate change. In the last section of this report, we
emissions related to agricultural production which are
present our recommendations for how policymakers
accounted under different sectors: land use and land
should enable and support the agriculture sector to
use change (LULUCF), industry, and energy. Neither does
become part of the solution to the climate crisis.
1 AGRICULTURE’S CONTRIBUTION
TO CLIMATE CHANGE
1.1 EMISSIONS FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AND LULUCF
Unlike most sectors which primarily emit carbon dioxide, oxide from the manure of farm animals. This adds up to
agriculture emits three different greenhouse gases, with 439 Mt CO2eq, or 10.15% of EU total emissions in 2017.2
different warming impact and different lifetimes in the As they are caused by biological processes inherent to
atmosphere: carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. food production, methane and nitrous oxide emissions
Carbon dioxide (CO2) has the lowest warming impact but cannot be fully eliminated, but significant reductions
stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years while are possible and necessary. Nvertheless, it is the
methane (CH4) has 25 times higher warming impact but only sector where emissions have been increasing in
only stays 12 years in the atmosphere. Nitrous oxide recent years, despite reductions in per-unit emissions3
(N2O) has a warming impact 298 times more potent than (i.e. efficiency improvements).
CO2 and stays in the atmosphere for around 114 years. 1
The emissions attributed to agriculture in the GHG 1 EPA: Overview of Greenhouse Gases
inventory are nitrous oxide emitted by agricultural soils 2 These and following emissions figures are from: European
Environmental Agency GHG Emissions reporting to UNFCCC
when fertilisers are used, methane emissions from 2019
ruminant livestock’s digestion, and methane and nitrous 3 CAP reform: The GHG emissions challenge for agriculture
5
Figure 1. Distribution of GHG emissions from agriculture and related land-use in CO2eq for the year 2017. Based on data from the European
Environment Agency (2019).
Land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) is
1.2 EMISSIONS FROM AGRICULTURE
usually not counted as agriculture emissions but are
a part of the EEA data in figure 1. While they have the ACCOUNTED IN OTHER SECTORS
potential to be carbon sinks, on balance, EU grasslands
Several other sources of GHG emissions are directly
and croplands currently emit CO2: 75 Mt CO2eq in 2017,
driven by agricultural activity but are accounted for
accounted under LULUCF. These emissions are caused
in other sectors and therefore do not appear on
when grassland is converted to cropland, when organic
agriculture’s carbon footprint. The production of
soils (peatlands) are drained, releasing the carbon
nitrogen fertilisers, for example, is a highly energy-
accumulated in the soils, and when land is managed
intensive industrial process, causing 29 Mt CO2eq5 per
too intensively. Overgrazing, ploughing, and excessive
year. Fuel combustion in agriculture is also a significant
applications of nitrogen fertilisers are practices which
source of GHG emissions, however emissions are not
can cause carbon emissions from land or at least
reported for agriculture alone in this case: together,
inhibit carbon sequestration and storage.4 Permanent
agriculture, forestry and fisheries account for 81 Mt
grasslands, although commonly thought to be natural
CO2eq. Emissions from the manufacture of machinery,
carbon sinks, are currently on average net sources of CO2
the processing of livestock feed, or the heating and
emissions for the EU as a whole. They are a net source of
cooling of farm buildings are not accounted separately
emissions in Germany, Ireland and the Netherlands, but
and therefore extremely hard to estimate. However, they
a net carbon sink in France, Italy and the UK.
can be expected to be significant, especially in countries
There has been a reduction in the emissions from where electricity generation still depends heavily on
grasslands and croplands in the EU since 1990, where fossil fuels.
the total emissions from these two sources were 107
The emissions from production of nitrogen fertiliser
Mt CO2eq. Over the coming decades, farmers and
have decreased significantly from a level of 83 Mt CO2eq
land managers have a key role to play in making
in 1990.6 The fuel combustion in the agriculture, forestry
European grasslands and croplands carbon neutral, or
and fisheries category has also decreased, though not as
even carbon sinks (see subsection 1.4).
steeply, as in 1990 it accounted for 98 Mt CO2eq. The other
However, looking only at the emission sources mentioned related emissions mentioned above, can be expected to
above gives an incomplete image of agriculture’s real have been higher historically as well, considering the
impact on climate change. The following sections heavier reliance on fossil fuels, the looser environmental
elaborate on agriculture’s many other contributions to regulations of the industry and the improvements of
GHG emissions. building insulation achieved since then.
4 IPCC: Land and Climate Change (chapter 4)
5 Emissions from ammonia and nitric acid production in the EU. Source: see footnote 1
6 EU Agricultural Market Briefs: Fertilisers in the EU
6
and 60 million hectares of the Cerrado savannah are
1.3 HIDDEN (IMPORTED EMISSIONS
under pasture.11
In a globalised world where raw and processed
Yet another aspect of the hidden emissions is livestock
agricultural products are constantly shipped and
feed imported for our herd. In the trade year 2017/2018
airfreighted around the globe, it is hard to justify
the EU imported 32.4 million tonnes of soy in the form
looking exclusively at the emissions produced within our
of whole beans and soya bean meals, mostly from the
borders without looking at the carbon footprint of the
United States and Brazil, and most of this is used for
goods produced elsewhere for our own consumption. In
animal feed.12 Apart from the direct emissions from
2018, the EU imported €138 billion worth of agricultural
production, soy production is the second largest driver
products (covering primary products as well as
of global deforestation13 which means that imported
processed foods, beverages and non-edibles),7 a large
soy is often associated with considerable additional
share of which comes from countries with laxer climate
emissions from land use change.
and environmental regulation than the EU, such as Brazil
and China. Finally, a commonly underrepresented aspect of
emissions, especially from the land use sector, is the
Although Europe is a major producer and exporter of
‘opportunity cost’ of alternative land uses, or
agricultural products, we also import a lot of food. In
‘foregone carbon sequestration’. For example, only
2018, the EU imported agricultural products worth €138
accounting for the emissions produced or
billion and exported for €137 billion. In 2017, the most
sequestered in the production of crops, ignores
exported products were beverages and vinegar, pastry
what carbon could have been sequestered if that
cooking products, dairy products, meat and mixed
land had been put to other uses, such as restoration
edible products. For import, the largest categories were
of natural habitat.14
fish and sea food, fruits and nuts, oil seeds and fruits,
prepared animal fodder and coffee, tea and spices.
7 The numbers on agricultural imports and exports in the
In 2018 alone, 341,053 tonnes of beef and veal (with a following two paragraphs come from EUROSTAT’s article on
trade in agricultural goods
value of €1.88 billion) was imported to the EU, primarily 8 Meat Market Observatory – Beef and Veal: EU Bovine Trade
from Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay.8 The emission 9 UCSUSA: Beef Cattle
10 Global Forest Atlas: Cattle Ranching in the Amazon Region
intensity of beef production in countries outside the
11 UCSUSA: The Importance of Brazil’s Cerrado
EU is difficult to assess, however, it is well documented 12 EU Feed Protein Balance Sheet
that cattle production is by far the largest driver of 13 UCSUSA: What’s Driving Deforestation?
14 Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for
deforestation in the world.9 In Brazil, cattle ranching mitigating climate change; Correcting a fundamental error
drives approximately 80% of deforestation in the Amazon in greenhouse gas accounting related to bioenergy
Amazonian rainforest and bordering agricultural land, Uwe Bergwitz (stock.adobe.com)
7
CROPLAND GRASSLAND
Mineral soils Organic soils Mineral soils Organic soils
Area
125 2 85 3
(Mha)
Total Soil Emission
27 33 - 41 41
(MtCO2)
Table 1. EU agricultural soil emissions in 2016. Based on data from the European Commission15
1.4 SOIL CARBON: PAST LOSSES AND FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES
Soils are major stores of carbon, which we 40-75% decline in soil carbon content relative to nearby
have historically been releasing in massive quantities native vegetation (indicative of pre-cultivation levels).
into the atmosphere. It is estimated that between Bringing carbon, or organic matter, back into agricultural
1870 and 2017, 31% of global cumulative CO2 soils is an important part of climate mitigation and
emissions have come from soil carbon (also known as adaptation in agriculture: this can both improve the
soil organic matter or soil organic carbon) lost through productivity of the land and place farmers at the heart
land use change16 (deforestation, the expansion of of one of our best solutions to mitigate climate change.
arable agriculture, and urbanisation) or
Land management practices are key to turn land from
unsustainable land management practices (such
a net source to a net sink of carbon while also reducing
as intensive agriculture leading to soil erosion
impacts on, or contributing to, other goals such as
and depletion, or the draining and exploitation of
biodiversity conservation and food security. While many
carbon-rich peatlands).
management practices that preserve and enhance soil
Peatlands, which globally contain 20-25% of carbon sequestration are already well tested, there is
soil carbon,17 are carbon sinks in their natural, wet, still a great need for additional research, mapping, and
state but become large emissions sources when they dissemination of knowledge. Currently, there is a high
are drained for agriculture or forestry. Countries uncertainty and variability in the quality of available
such as Finland, Germany, and Poland have the data on soil carbon, making it hard to make a qualified
highest concentration of peatlands, but these soil assessment upon which to base policy.
types are present throughout the EU. Although
peatlands only represent 2% of EU grasslands and
15 European Commission: A Clean Planet for All
croplands, they are responsible for 55% of cropland 16 Global Carbon Project: Global Carbon Budget 2018
emissions and completely ‘offset’ carbon 17 CAP specific objectives explained: Agriculture and Climate
Mitigation
sequestration in grasslands with mineral soils.
18 See footnote 4
The IPCC special report on land and climate change18
found that soils under conventional agriculture have a
8
2 THE CURRENT POLICY FRAMEWORK
The EU and all member states have signed the 2015 Paris Agreement on
Climate Change, committing to keep global mean temperature increases below 1.5
degrees relative to pre-industrial levels. The EU has also committed to implementing
the UN's Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted in September 2015 as part
of the United Nations’ Agenda 2030. The SDG 13, Climate Action, is aligned to the goal
of the Paris Agreement.
In October 2018, the IPCC released a special report on
2.1 MAINSTREAMING CLIMATE
how the 1.5 degrees Celsius goal could be achieved.19
Agriculture was an essential part of the pathways ACTION IN ALL EU FUNDING
leading to no or limited overshoot, with a particular
The EU has a commitment to ‘mainstream climate action’
focus on reducing methane emissions. The IPCC
in all EU policies and in its budget, with a target of 20%
report on Climate Change and Land found that
of all EU spending to contribute to climate action. As
agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU)
the CAP is the single largest share of the EU budget,
accounts for 23% of total man-made GHG emissions.
accounting for 36.1% of total EU spending (€58.4 billion)
In the EU, the Effort Sharing Decision and the Climate in 2019,20 and represents 97% of the EU’s budget for
Action Regulation (CAR) regulate climate action in the natural resources, the sector is very important for
agriculture, transport, buildings and waste sectors. The achieving this goal.
principle of common but differentiated responsibility is
In the current budget period, more than half of “climate
applied, leading to different reduction targets for each
mainstreaming” was claimed through the CAP: 29%
member state. For the EU as a whole, the targets are:
through the European Agricultural Fund for Rural
10% emissions reduction by 2020 and 30% by
Development (EAFRD) – Pillar 2 of the CAP, and 23%
2030, compared to 2005. In the LULUCF sector,
through the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund
climate action is regulated separately, and it is
(EAGF) – CAP income support and ‘greening’ subsidies.
based on the “no debit rule”: positive and
For the new budget (2021-2027) and CAP, the European
negative emissions in that sector should compensate
Commission set an expectation that 40% of CAP funding
each other to maintain net zero emissions for the
should count as climate spending, to contribute to a
sector at the national level. In each member state, the
climate mainstreaming target of 25% of the EU budget.
LULUCF and the CAR sectors can compensate for each
This would mean that 46% of ‘climate spending’ will be
other’s underachievement: e.g. if LULUCF breaks the
spent through agriculture.
no debit rule it can be balanced out if the CAR sectors
overachieved on their targets, or vice versa. However, there are significant issues with the way
‘climate spending’ is tracked in the CAP. The methodology
Various policy instruments offer options to deliver
used to calculate how much CAP funding contributes
climate action in agriculture – climate mainstreaming,
to climate action is flawed and has been strongly
National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs), and the
criticised by the European Court of Auditors.21 40% of
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).
the subsidies meant as ‘income support’ for farmers and
40% of compensation payments for farmers in areas with
19 IPCC: Global Warming of 1.5 Degrees C
20 Factsheets on the European Union: Financing of the CAP natural constraints (e.g. mountains) is tagged as “climate
21 ECA: Spending at least one euro in every five from the EU spending”. Yet, official evaluations have concluded that
budget on climate action
no evidence exists that these measures contribute to
22 IEEP: CAP 2021-27: Proposals for increasing its
environmental and climate ambition GHG reductions at all.22
9
In addition, 100% of funding for environmental measures
2.2.1 Benchmarking of climate
under the CAP is tagged as “climate spending”,
ambitions of five NECPs
regardless of whether climate mitigation is a primary
aim of the specific measures or not. This methodology In the EUKI project 'An unavoidable step after Paris:
allows the Commission to reach its mainstreaming Cutting emissions from farming', the climate change
targets without changing the way funding is mitigation ambitions in agriculture in the NECPs of five
distributed under the CAP. It also ignores the net effect target countries were assessed. The assessment
of CAP spending, by not counting or estimating focused on a. scope, b. transparency, c. measures in
spending that could increase emissions, such as the agricultural sector, d. consistency and credibility
intensive meat and dairy production subsidies. A more and e. trade-offs. In the following paragraphs, the
robust tracking methodology based on actual results assessment of the draft NECPs of Ireland, Germany,
(i.e. demonstrated GHG emissions reductions) must Spain, France and Hungary are summarised. The full
be developed to ensure that climate mainstreaming assessments are in the appendices of this report.
delivers real climate action.
• The assessment of the Irish NECP draft did not reveal
2.2 CLIMATE ACTION IN any major issues with scope and transparency, apart
from a very low score on the indicator “Multilevel
AGRICULTURE THROUGH NECPs
dialogue” concerning the broad inclusion of various
The National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs)23 are stakeholders. This is problematic, as it indicates that
envisioned in the energy union and climate action the ambitions of broad participation have not been
rules of December 24, 2018, requiring MS to achieved. Regarding measures in the agricultural
develop a national plan for the period 2021-2030. sector, all the scores were very low apart from a
The NECPS are an attempt to align EU and national moderate score on the “Infrastructure” indicator.
policy with international climate commitments. The The same is true for consistency and credibility and
plans are based on a common template and foresee a trade-offs. In sum, the Irish draft NECP is assessed
transparent and participatory process where civil as lacking consistently on almost all the assessed
society and other stakeholders are invited to provide parameters.
substantial feedback to the NECP drafts. The emphasis
• The assessment of the German NECP draft showed
on public participation and regional cooperation has
poor performance in scope, apart from the “Deadline”
potential to enhance engagement and broad
indicator. In transparency, the draft scored medium
ownership of climate action in the EU.
on “Public participation”, high on “Publication” and
However, based on our analysis (see below), the draft very low in “Multilevel dialogue”. The assessment on
NECPs published in January 2019 clearly lack in detail the drafts performance on measures in the agricultural
and are not on track to reach the targets set in the Paris sector was very negative on all seven indicators apart
Agreement. When it comes to the agricultural sector, from “Inclusion of long-term strategy” which was
most member states did not set any emissions rated as moderate. Similarly, the rating was negative
reduction targets, and many do not even put in all indicators of consistency and credibility and in
forward new measures to reduce GHG emissions. trade-offs apart from the moderately rated indicators
The feedback on the drafts provided in June 2019 by of “Climate” and “Job creation” trade-offs.
the European Commission was overall very vague and
• In the case of the Spanish NECP draft, scope was
did not oblige the member states to make
rated between moderate and great, apart from the
amendments to get them on track towards net zero
“Deadline” indicator which reported a considerable
emissions by 2050. MS are now reviewing the
delay. The assessment of the transparency was
feedback from the Commission and from the public
mostly moderate with one negative score in “Public
hearings (in the countries where such were conducted)
participation” while the various indicators of
and adjusting the drafts before the deadline for the final
measures in the agricultural sector were distributed
plans at the end of 2019.
over the whole scale. As for consistency and credibility,
indicators were ranked both very positive and very
23 European Commission: Nation Energy and Climate Plans
(NECPs) negative and the “Use of loopholes” indicator could
10not be properly assessed due to ambiguity in the
2.3 CLIMATE ACTION THROUGH
draft text. In terms of trade-offs, the Spanish
draft was assessed to bring several positive co- THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL
benefits for “Air quality”, “Soil quality”, “Energy POLICY
consumption” and “Job creation”.
The 2014-2020 CAP was envisioned to contribute to the
• The French NECP draft has very variable scores sustainability of European agriculture through measures
in scope and moderately positive scores for in both Pillar 1 and Pillar 2. However, evaluations of the
transparency. In terms of measures in the agricultural environmental performance of the CAP have been rather
sector, the French NECP was very weak which is also sceptical of its environmental and climate performance.
the case for consistency and credibility. Few positive
In 2019, the European Commission published an
trade-offs were identified but on the negative side,
evaluation of the 2014-2020 CAP’s impact on the
the ambitions for first-generation biofuels might
climate.24 The main finding was that while climate
have negative trade-offs with GHG emissions
action was one of the key objectives of the CAP, the
through indirect land use change.
voluntary nature of most climate and environmental
• The Hungarian NECP draft scored low or moderate measures left ample room for maintaining the status
in all indicators in scope and moderate in all the quo. The report also pointed to the lack of CAP tools for
transparency indicators. For the measures in the farmers to tackle methane emissions from ruminants
agricultural sector, the assessment found that and nitrous oxide emissions from soil management,
agriculture is absent from the draft and all indicators the two single largest sources of GHG in agriculture.
scored the lowest or second lowest mark. Consistency
Already in 2016, the European Court of Auditors
and credibility were assessed with the lowest score in
published an assessment of climate action in the
two indicators and with the highest in one and trade-
EU budget,25 concluding that the agricultural sector,
offs ranked between lowest and moderate scores.
amongst others, had failed to significantly shift towards
Based on this analysis, and unless considerable climate action. They further observed that agriculture is
improvements are made before the final plans are one of the major barriers to the EU reaching its overall
published, this first generation of NECPs is likely to be target of 20% reduction of GHG emissions by 2020.
a missed opportunity for addressing agricultural GHG
emissions. Although the five assessed draft NECPs
2.3.1 Pillar 1: Direct payments, coupled
from the five target countries are not representative payments, and greening
of all member states, they are indicative of the general
Pillar 1 of the CAP, which provides ‘income support’, or
picture, which is one of lack of attention to agriculture
direct payments, to EU farmers, is by far the largest part
and absence of specific targets for mitigation in the
of the total CAP budget, covering 76% (€44.44 billion)
sector. This is a loss for the EU, considering the urgency
in 2018.26 30% of the direct payments are
and magnitude of the challenge of complying with
dedicated to greening measures (crop diversification,
the Paris Agreement. Far-reaching change needs to
ecological focus areas and permanent pasture)
occur in all parts of our society and economy, and the
which were envisioned to contribute to
NECPs provide a useful framework to discuss the
environmental objectives (climate, biodiversity, and
distribution of efforts between sectors and plan
sustainable management of natural resources).
climate action in a holistic, fair, and effective way.
Farmers in receipt of direct payments are mandated to
comply with basic rules for good agronomic and
environmental condition (GAEC) in cross-compliance.
On that basis, the European Commission deems
that 19.5% of direct payments contribute to
24 European Commission: Evaluation study of the impact of climate mitigation objectives. However, the ECA
the CAP on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions
found that that this percentage is not properly
25 See footnote 19
26 European Commission: The common agricultural policy at a justified and propose that 10% would be more accurate.
glance
27 See footnote 20 In an assessment of the current CAP, the Institute for
European Environmental Policy (IEEP)27 found that
11the greening measures predominantly were used by genetic resources. Yet, the ECA found that the European
MS to consolidate already common practices rather Commission was overestimating the Rural Development
than introducing new environmental and climate Fund’s contributions to climate action by over 40%.
ambitions. The assessment found that environmental
In the report 'Analysis of climate ambition of the
protection was rarely a priority for MS in designing and
Rural Development Programs in targeted countries'30
implementing greening measures.
published by the EEB, the Pillar 2 RDPs of five MS
In addition, the CAP currently funds practices or farming were analysed. It found that agricultural emissions
models that directly contribute to climate change. The are projected to grow steadily until 2030 and that it
majority of coupled support (paid by level of production) is unlikely that current climate measures will lead to
goes to the meat and dairy sectors, 28
and per-hectare effective emissions reduction. The report identified four
payments are also paid for drained peatlands used for common weaknesses of the RDPs:
agriculture, carbon emissions hotspots. A report by
• The absence of clear targets and quantifiable
Greenpeace estimated that overall between €28.5 billion
outcomes linked to specific measures.
and €32.6 billion of the CAP budget goes to livestock
• The absence of independent scientific assessment
farms or farms producing fodder for livestock – between
of the measures after a certain number of years or
18% and 20% of the EU’s total annual budget.29
the absence of the obligation to report their impacts
2.3.2 Pillar 2: Rural Development when scientific assessments exist.
Programmes • The absence of strategic planning ensuring
coherence between the objective pursued with
Pillar 2, supporting rural development, makes up the certain measures of the RDPs and other policy
remaining 24% (€14.37 billion) of the CAP budget instruments.
in 2018. The national rural development • The voluntary nature of measures and the limited
programmes (RDPs) were reformed with the current available funds for them.
CAP according to six core priorities of which one is
Much of this criticism is echoed by the IEEP, in particular
environmental, and one relates to climate. The RDPs
the lack of clear targets and indicators to guide and
became more result-oriented and focused on
assess the climate and environmental measures. The CAP
achieving maximum added value.
needs to improve significantly to deliver the important
The most important environmental tool in Pillar 2 contributions to the climate and the environment that is
is the agri-environment-climate measure (AECM). required of the agricultural sector.
Through payments, these encourage farmers or groups
of farmers to change or maintain their agricultural 28 European Commission: Review by the Member States of
their support decisions applicable as from claim year 2019
practices to contribute to climate change mitigation
29 Greenpeace: Feeding the Problem: the dangerous
and adaptation, protection and improvement of intensification of animal farming in Europe
environment and landscape, natural resources, soil and 30 EEB: Analysis of climate ambition of the Rural Development
Programs in targeted countries
JürgenBauerPictures (stock.adobe.com)
123 WHAT WE RECOMMEND
strategic policies aiming to reduce demand for meat
3.1 REDUCING GHG EMISSIONS
and dairy, both by fighting food waste and by promoting
3.1.1 Reduce farm animal numbers in a shift to healthier and more sustainable diets (e.g.
Europe and help farmers transition through green public procurement). In addition, our
trade policies should support, rather than hinder, this
When talking about agricultural GHG emissions, goal (see chapter 3.4). This in in order to avoid a simple
methane and nitrous oxide are by far the most shifting of production to other parts of the world.
important. According to the EU Agricultural Outlook
2017-2030 by the European Commission,31 most non-
3.1.2 Promote EU-wide adoption of
CO2 emissions originate from animal production, directly agroecological farming practices
or indirectly. The livestock sector is projected to account
Intensive agricultural practices are increasingly
for 72% of total non-CO2 emissions by 2030. While there
recognised to be linked to erosion and the degradation
is a growing focus on improving genetics, feed, facilities
of soils.33 In such conditions, soils are net sources of CO2
etc., technological innovation is not enough to deal with
emissions and rely on fertilisers and pesticides to remain
this problem. The evidence is unequivocal that reducing
productive. The CAP must mainstream agroecological
production levels, i.e. decreasing livestock numbers
practices that build soil health and fertility. Crop rotation
and the consumption and export of meat and dairy,
with leguminous crops, landscape features, and the
will be required to achieve climate-neutrality by 2050.
reduction of the use of inputs should be promoted.
Furthermore, a reduction of the livestock herd is the
This will allow for higher carbon sequestration in
only way to bring air and water pollution (from nitrates,
agricultural soils and lower emissions from machinery
ammonia and methane) below the legal thresholds
and fertilisers production. Organic farming, agroforestry
in areas with intensive livestock production – i.e. high
and conservation agriculture can be examples of
concentrations of animals in very small areas.
agroecological farming systems when done well.
In a world with a growing population, it is furthermore
Agroforestry is a land use system where woody
unimaginable that Europe would continue to use as
perennials (such as trees and shrubs) are integrated
much arable land as we currently do to grow feed for our
with crop and/or livestock production. When trees
livestock: 128.9 million ha of agricultural land in the EU
are introduced to the farm in a well-informed and
(72% of total)32 was in 2016 used to grow feed crops
well-planned agroforestry system, they can provide
or grass for feed. Yet, only 35% of the EU's agricultural
important functions such as water and soil conservation,
area is permanent pasture. This must be supplemented
better nutrient management, improved biodiversity
by the large areas used to grow imported feed, as
and enhanced resilience of the farm. Furthermore,
presented in chapter 1.3.
agroforestry often requires a landscape approach to
For those reasons, the EU must support our farmers to the farm and, thus, promotes a more
move away from intensive livestock production towards comprehensive and integrated way of farming which
extensive systems. This will require lower production of can benefit the environment and the farmer.35
meat, dairy and eggs (but of higher quality) since extensive
production requires more land. Lower production and
consumption levels would also allow Europe to reach
self-sufficiency in livestock feed and fodder. This could 31 European Commission: EU agricultural outlook: European
emissions linked to agriculture set to decrease by 2030
be done through transition payments from the CAP’s
32 RISE Foundation: What is the Safe Operating Space for EU
investment funds or sector-specific subsidies linked Livestock?
to farm transition plans developed with support from 33 See footnote 4
34 FAO: Agroforestry
farm advisory services. This should be combined with 35 World Agroforestry: What is agroforestry?
13Conservation agriculture, also known as regenerative 51kg N/ha40 in 2015 and total nitrous oxide emissions
agriculture, is based on three core principles which from agricultural soils were 164 Mt CO2eq41 in 2017. In
together promote soil health by increasing the organic addition, the production of synthetic nitrogen fertilisers
matter content and microbial life of soils: no till, constant is a highly energy-intensive process.
soil cover, and complex crop rotations including legumes.
CAP measures should be put in place to close the
When implemented well, this system has shown to
nutrients loop by improving the recycling of nutrients
maintain or increase yields with significantly lower
from manure, food waste and sewage and drastically
agro-chemical inputs, leading to more profitable farm
reducing new inputs of synthetic nitrogen. This needs
businesses.36 While no-till systems which do not
to be done at farm-level and at local level through
respect all three principles of conservation
collaboration between farmers and with other actors
agriculture have been associated with high use of
(for example schools composting their food waste with
herbicides, increasingly non-chemical no-till methods
local farmers). In addition, best practice in the storage
are being developed with positive results.37
and application of fertilisers is key to prevent avoidable
Agroecological systems are based on farm-level losses to the environment. Fertilisation needs can also
diversification of production, which can also enhance be reduced through the adoption of agroecological
the agronomic and socio-economic resilience of the practices which enhance fertility through improved soil
farm. Diversified systems are generally more resistant health.
towards disease, pests and weeds and are better suited
Achieving a fully circular and local economy for nutrients
for the climatic conditions in a warmer future with more
can also create socio-economic opportunities in rural
extreme weather events. Diversification also brings
communities by improving living conditions (less air
co-benefits for water quality and conservation and for
and water pollution), by tackling nitrates and ammonia
biodiversity. These agronomic benefits strengthen the
pollution, by providing local sources of energy (for
socio-economic resilience of the farmer, as production
instance through manure biogas plants) and by
becomes less vulnerable to natural risks. Furthermore,
creating new markets (labour and knowledge for new
the farm business becomes less vulnerable to global
technologies).
market fluctuations if the entire revenue does not
depend on one single crop.
3.2 INCREASING CARBON SINKS
The CAP should seek to mainstream agroecological
practices through a combination of conditionality rules
3.2.1 Protect and manage permanent
and well-funded environmental schemes in both grasslands for climate and biodiversity
pillars, in close collaboration with farm advisory
Protecting grasslands as part of extensive livestock
services.
systems has considerable emissions mitigation
3.1.3 Enforce best practice in nutrients potential.42 This requires a complete ban on ploughing
or converting permanent grasslands, and an effective
management
mix of conditionality rules and environmental funding
Nutrients availability (especially nitrogen and schemes to maintain and restore species-rich grasslands,
phosphorus) is a key factor for plant growth. protect and enhance landscape features such as trees
Organic fertilisers (animal manure or composted plant and hedges, and to bring stocking density in line with
residues) and mineral (mined or manufactured) biodiversity requirements.
fertilisers are therefore used to boost yields;
however, when more nutrients are applied than crops
can take in, they escape to the environment and cause
36 Growing a Revolution, Bringing our Soil back to Life. (2018)
pollution; including GHG emissions. Nitrogen David R. Montgomery, WW Norton & Co, New York.
fertilisation boosts the production of nitrous oxide 37 Arc 2020: Agroecology Europe Forum – Focus on No-Till
38 FAO: Global database of GHG emissions related to feed
(N2O) by agricultural soils:38 around 1.25 kg of
crops
nitrous oxide is produced per kg of nitrogen applied 39 How does fertilizer use affect GHG emissions?
to a field39 which is particularly problematic since 40 EEA: Agriculture: nitrogen balance
41 EEA GHG Inventory
nitrous oxide has a global warming potential of 298 42 See footnote 22
times that of CO2. In the EU, the average excess
nitrogen (or agricultural nitrogen balance) was around
14This will provide win-win benefits for carbon storage, is not typically as profitable as traditional agriculture or
adaptation to climate change, biodiversity, and soil forestry uses, and should therefore be incentivised and
protection. In addition, there can be economic benefits funded through the CAP. Furthermore, studies at the
for farmers. Research in England showed that upland global level suggest that restoring peatlands requires
farmers improved their farm profitability by reducing almost 3.5 times less nitrogen and far less land
their inputs and herd size, and by taking a more nature- compared to mineral soil carbon sequestration.48
friendly approach relying primarily on the farm’s natural
European forests should also not be forgotten. Although
assets.43
around 40% of the EU is forested,49 corresponding to
Conditionality rules should be designed to maintain the 182 million ha and just exceeding the arable area of
permanent grassland ratio at a regional level relative 179 million ha, all is not well in the woods. Significant
to historical references. Under the eco-schemes of the deforestation is embedded in imported crops, meats
new CAP, payment for additional permanent grassland and biofuels. Despite pledges to stop deforestation,
could also be structured as competitive bidding based EU imports’ contribution to global deforestation is
on environmental criteria. Such an approach has projected to increase by as much as 25% by 2030.50
been used successfully in the USA, to ensure cost- Furthermore, the quality of European forests is low, with
effective achievement of environmental objectives.44 a predominance of low-biodiversity monocultures of
pine and other industrially utilised species. Management
3.2.2 Ensure the conservation and practices such as clear-cutting large areas of forest
fund the restoration of wetlands, is threatening climate and the environment and
peatlands, and forests plantations are sometimes planted on drained peatland
which might cause them to be net emitters.51
Wetlands, peatlands, and forests are massive carbon
sinks that have been significantly degraded over the past
decades. European peatlands are estimated to contain 43 RSPB: Nature friendly hill farms can be more profitable
44 Cost-effective design of agri-environmental payment
five times more carbon than forests.45 These soils have programs: U.S. experience in theory and practice
formed under permanently waterlogged conditions, 45 BBC: Climate Change: Widespread dying of European
peatlands
preventing the complete decomposition of dead
46 Greifswald Mire Centre: Reporting greenhouse gas
biomass and resulting in the accumulation of carbon emissions from organic soils in the European Union
rich soil organic matter. When the area is drained, this 47 Wetlands International: Paludiculture presents the
necessary paradigm shift toward sustainable peatland use
organic matter decomposes rapidly. The solution is with global climate benefits
therefore simple: peatlands must be rewetted. When the 48 The underappreciated potential of peatlands in global
climate change mitigation strategies
water table is restored to pre-drainage levels, emissions
49 Eurostat: Over 40% of the EU is covered with forest
are drastically reduced or even stopped.46 While wet 50 The Guardian: Europe’s contribution to deforestation set to
peatlands can be managed productively, a production rise despite pledge to halt it
51 META: Europe’s forestry policy is not yet out of the woods
system known as paludiculture, this land management
kropic (stock.adobe.com)
15are too often based on vague objectives and weak
3.3 ENSURING ACCOUNTABILITY
indicators so that decisionmakers cannot easily be held
THROUGH GOVERNANCE AND accountable for the lack of progress. Agricultural
MONITORING climate action needs to be guided by transparent targets
monitored by clear, quantified indicators.
3.3.1 Inclusive governance for good
policymaking Furthermore, while the European Commission claims
that the proposal for the future CAP is a result-
Close collaboration between environmental, climate and based model, results will be measured by the uptake
agricultural authorities is crucial to develop coherent rate of schemes. The percentage of farmers enrolled in
and effective policies, and so is the involvement of a certain scheme or of hectares under a certain
all stakeholders in the process. Policymakers should management practice does not make it a result-based
empower societal actors, including farmers and model, as member states are not held to account for
environmental experts, to contribute meaningfully to the actual environmental performance of those
the design of policies. This must involve efforts to build schemes. To be truly result-based, the new CAP must
consensus and engage in constructive dialogue with all include mechanisms to monitor the performance of
actors. schemes and if a scheme is shown not to deliver on its
stated objective, it should be adapted or terminated.
According to the Partnership Principle of the ESIF
European Code of Conduct, member states are
3.4 INTEGRATING CLIMATE IN ALL
required to involve all relevant stakeholders in all
stages and levels of EU activities. This is a way to
POLICIES
ensure that EU funds deliver on environmental Close collaboration between environmental, climate
objectives and on sustainability in general. and agricultural authorities is crucial to develop
Environmental authorities and NGOs should be fully coherent and effective policies, as is the
involved in the development of the national/regional involvement of all stakeholders in the process.
CAP programs and be able to contest decisions that are Policymakers should empower societal actors,
not in compliance with relevant legislations and including farmers and environmental experts, to
frameworks. Yet, the experience of environmental NGOs contribute meaningfully to the design of policies. This
under the current CAP is that only the British government must involve efforts to build consensus and engage in
involved them in the drafting of the common monitoring constructive dialogue with all actors.
and evaluation system. This should be required
under the post-2020 CAP, so that environmental 3.4.1 EU trade must be climate-proof
NGOs can help make the climate measures more
While climate action in EU agriculture may cause some
targeted and effective while also providing expertise
carbon leakage (meaning that reductions in emissions
and support to agricultural authorities.
through reduced production in Europe are offset by
3.3.2 Science-based and result- increased production and emissions in third
oriented monitoring countries), this should not prevent us from reducing
our own GHG emissions by limiting or reducing the
To ensure that the schemes are delivering the intended production and consumption of carbon-intensive
results, 2% of the budget of each agri-environment products. Rather, the answer is to ensure clear climate
scheme needs to be ring-fenced for regulation and tracking of our trade. EU trade must
independent scientific monitoring of schemes, based contribute to the supply and consumption of low
on a robust sampling methodology. Spending must carbon products. This requires, as a start, putting an
also be justified ex ante in relation to identified needs end to the export orientation of livestock and dairy
(such as priority farmland species at national level) farming. In addition, the EU should define robust
and backed up with scientific evidence. standards for monitoring GHG emissions embedded
in agricultural imports, then ensure that these do
To ensure policy instruments deliver actual results,
not increase the carbon footprint of our
quantitative targets and robust indicators are key to
consumption, compared to EU production. This way,
plan and monitor progress or the lack thereof. Current
the EU can mitigate its own agricultural emissions while
policies and regulations, e.g. the CAP and the NECPs,
making sure that these do not leak to other countries.
16and other landscape elements, which provides habitats
3.4.2 Leveraging public and private
and contribute to carbon sequestration. Similarly, the
funds for climate action in agriculture
rewetting of peatlands will involve huge gains for both
As explained previously, the EU is committed to biodiversity and climate, as peatlands are the largest
mainstreaming climate action in its policies and budget. source of agriculture emissions.
In addition to improving the methodology applied
There are also lose-lose interventions that may be
to track the 20-25% of ‘climate spending’, it is key that
pursued in the name of climate change, namely the
no EU money is spent on programmes or projects that
cultivation of crop-based bioenergy and biofuels, or the
are counter to our climate and environmental
burning of wood for bioenergy. While concerns about
objectives.
such products originally related mainly to biodiversity
Furthermore, private investments should also due to their huge land-footprint, it has now become
be harnessed to contribute to finance climate clear that such products are also not beneficial from a
action in all sectors, including agriculture. By climate perspective. They could even increase emissions
developing an evidence-based taxonomy setting compared to fossil fuels,53 even before the opportunity
strict standards for what constitutes ‘green activity’ cost of ‘missed carbon sequestration’ is considered.54
for all sectors, including agriculture, the EU can help
Other measures, namely restoration of tree cover and
channel private money away from climate-harming
livestock reduction, will depend on how these land use
activities and towards programmes and projects
changes are implemented and managed, and the trade-
that contribute to mitigation and adaptation.
offs may not always be between climate-biodiversity
but between species too. In the case of livestock,
3.5 DELIVERING JOINTLY FOR it is crucial to concentrate reductions in intensive
sectors, and shift towards predominantly plant-
CLIMATE AND BIODIVERSITY based diets. At the same time, some extensively grazed
Mass extinction and climate breakdown are the habitats (density depends on purpose and perspective
two main environmental challenges of modern and should be further researched) like species-rich
society. And the challenges are intertwined: climate semi-natural grasslands must be maintained
change is, and will increasingly be, one of the main (to benefit certain wild species) and will provide a small
direct drivers of biodiversity loss,52 while biodiversity amount of high-quality meat and dairy products. A
loss reduces nature’s resilience to climate change. This holistic and fully science-based land planning
will have (and already has) a huge negative impact on perspective is therefore crucial to restoring the right
biodiversity (e.g. through droughts, loss of habitat kinds of woodlands and maintaining the right kinds
through forest fires, loss of general ecosystem coherence and levels of grazed habitats in the process of
as migration patterns and other behaviours are put out shifting towards predominantly plant-based diets.
of sync), so reducing emissions from agriculture is
Applying certain biodiversity safeguards to climate
crucial for biodiversity. Adaptation measures to climate
measures will help to mitigate potential negative trade-
change will also affect biodiversity. If, for example, farms
offs between biodiversity and climate objectives. Any
increase irrigation use in response to drought, this
policy incentivising land use changes (e.g. afforestation)
could lead to wetlands being drained and groundwater
must include biodiversity in its objectives and must
sources being over-exploited. Or if trees are planted in
be based on an assessment of the pre-existing
inappropriate habitats, especially, drained peatlands, it
biodiversity value, either at planning or at project
can be harmful for both biodiversity and carbon
level. Schemes should be monitored not only in terms
storage.
of GHG emission but also on their impact on
At the same time, there are a range of different other environmental dimensions.
mitigation options that will have different impacts
on biodiversity. Europe must strive for win-wins and 52 IPBES: Global assessment
53 Carbon balance effects of U.S. biofuel production and use;
avoid a situation where climate change mitigation
EU bioenergy
measures have negative trade-offs with other 54 World Resources Institute: Ensuring Crop Expansion is
Limited to Lands with Low Environmental Opportunity
environmental dimensions. An example of a win-win
Costs
is the establishment or maintenance of quality
hedgerows
17CONCLUSION
Understanding agricultural GHG emissions is more In the report, five clusters of policy recommendations
complex than many other sectors, as they primarily are outlined. The first relates to reductions of GHG
consist of non-CO2 gases with different warming impacts emissions, which require a transition for the livestock
and atmospheric lifetime. This report has highlighted sector towards more extensive systems, a wide-scale
the importance of widening the understanding of adoption of agroecological practices, and drastic
agricultural GHG emissions to also include emissions improvements to nutrients management. The second
from land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF), focuses on increasing carbon sinks, arguing for the
emissions normally ascribed to other sectors (such as protection and management of permanent grasslands
energy and transport) and emissions hidden in imported and the conservation and restoration of wetlands,
products. It also puts soil carbon sequestration in peatlands and forests. The third targets governance and
context: a great opportunity for farmers and land monitoring, covering a focus on inclusive governance
managers to play a positive role in climate mitigation for policymaking as well as robust and result-oriented
and adaptation, although they will be merely undoing monitoring. The fourth focuses on integration of climate
centuries of soil carbon depletion by agricultural into all EU policies and calls for climate-proof trade
activities. policies and a leverage of public and private funding
for climate action. The fifth cluster brings attention to
The report has called attention to the lack of climate
the importance of considering synergies and trade-offs
ambition in the common agricultural policy (CAP) and
between climate action and biodiversity objectives.
the lack of attention to agriculture in the National Energy
and Climate Plans (NECPs). Not only are many measures The report taps into the growing debate on the role of
too weak, they are also lacking a robust monitoring and agriculture in tackling the climate challenge facing our
evaluation framework, with science-based targets society. The challenge is tremendous, and our response
and indicators. There is also a well-documented must be comprehensive and ambitious: all sectors
discrepancy between the claimed climate action must play their part and agriculture is no exception.
driven by the policies and the actual situation on This understanding is particularly important in this
the ground. There is a serious concern that these very moment, as the negotiations about the future
inconsistencies and loopholes might be replicated or CAP are still ongoing, providing an extended window
even expanded in the future CAP currently under of opportunity to convince decision-makers about their
negotiation. responsibility and the potential of turning the CAP into a
powerful lever for climate action.
romaniamissions (pixabay.com)
18You can also read
